United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019-07-26
18usc1343: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: criminal appeal from jury conviction of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), bank fraud and related conspiracy and corrupt-payment counts; Lebedev's sufficiency challenge rejected; affirmed; result: claimant-won; claim:
Uncertainty
Element scheme: holding: the scheme element was not separately contested; the only deciding sentence is the omnibus sufficiency conclusion
Misfit
The Second Circuit affirmed property satisfaction under its former "right to control" theory (depriving financial institutions of valuable economic information regarding merchant identity). The Supreme Court subsequently repudiated this theory in Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023).
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 8
| Case | Scheme or artifice to defraud | Traditional money or property as an object | Material deception | Knowing participation with intent to defraud | Transmission or causation by wire, radio, television | Wire transmission for execution of scheme |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Lebedev — 932 F.3d 40 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (18usc1343: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–8 of 8
| Case | Interstate or foreign transmission | Separate section 1346 theory; outside property-fraud claim |
|---|---|---|
| United States v. Lebedev — 932 F.3d 40 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (18usc1343: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Lebedev — 932 F.3d 40 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Traditional money or property as an object | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Yuri Lebedev; count: wire fraud (Coin.mx Bitcoin exchange disguised as "Collectables Club"); subject: party=Yuri Lebedev; count=wire fraud (Coin.mx Bitcoin exchange disguised as "Collectables Club") Lebedev's only sufficiency argument on the wire-fraud count was that deceiving the institutions about the nature of the business did not harm or risk harming them; rejected under the (pre-Ciminelli) right-to-control doctrine. | card-issuing banks deprived of merchant-identity information relevant to fraud and regulatory risk | Heinrich testified that Chase decides whether to process pending credit card transactions based in part on information it receives about the merchant. Chase evaluates regulatory risk, including potential fines for doing business that is illegal, as well as economic risk posed by fraudulent transactions, and considers transactions with money services or money-transmitting businesses to carry a higher risk of fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [9596:10013] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa.The evidence at trial demonstrated that Coin.mx was a money service business that was both unlawful and carried a higher risk of fraudulent transactions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [10014:10167] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa."Since a defining feature of most property is the right to control the asset in question, we have recognized that the property interests protected by the ... wire fraud statute[ ] include the interest of a victim in controlling his or her own assets."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [8583:8834] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa.On this basis, a reasonable jury could conclude that Lebedev deprived the financial institutions of the right to control their assets by misrepresenting potentially valuable economic information.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [10434:10629] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa. |
| United States v. Lebedev — 932 F.3d 40 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (18usc1343: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Scheme or artifice to defraud | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Yuri Lebedev; count: wire fraud (Coin.mx Bitcoin exchange disguised as "Collectables Club"); subject: party=Yuri Lebedev; count=wire fraud (Coin.mx Bitcoin exchange disguised as "Collectables Club") The deception itself was not disputed on appeal (the argument was absence of harm); the court recites the evidence of it in upholding sufficiency. | Bitcoin exchange transactions disguised through a front "collectors' club" so banks and processors would approve them | Coin.mx opened bank accounts in the name of "the Collectables Club," which falsely purported to be a private members' association dedicated to collecting and exchanging memorabilia.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [1527:1708] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa.One of Lebedev's responsibilities was to set up various Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses to make it appear to banks and payment processors that Coin.mx's transactions were legitimate Collectables Club transactions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [2028:2244] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa.The evidence also showed that Lebedev's role in Coin.mx's scheme was to disguise Coin.mx's Bitcoin transactions through front entities such as the Collectables Club, so the institutions processing those transactions would be more likely to process and approve them.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [10168:10433] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa.Accordingly, sufficient evidence supported Lebedev's convictions for wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0040-01; Unicode character offsets [12412:12550] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5d88a701fc7d5ffe2cbab65485f0ab756dcdbf5ba8ced047625bdd408703b4aa. |